When did Liverpool FC become about profits? When did this club care more about their profit and loss statement compared to their on-field performance? Get your head out of the clouds, we all support a club NOT A BUSINESS. In the end we support this great club because we want them to win trophies on the field, nothing more, nothing less. The last two f**ksticks did such a "stellar" job that some of you lunatics think that running a club sensibly is something to shout from the rooftops about. Get over it, it's EXPECTED that they do this! And let's make one thing clear they did this because they stand to make a massive profit when they end up selling this club. Their agenda is different to ours. They aren't like us and will one day move on, we the soul of this club will NEVER MOVE ON.
Who said anything about Liverpool FC becoming all about profits? Why do you keep changing the meaning of my posts? I care about what happens on the pitch as much as I care about how Liverpool as an institution is operating. I support both, the CLUB and the BUSINESS, because at this day and age the BUSINESS is also important and it's important to see a growing institution. Financial document released by Liverpool earlier said ''Football success is a key driver for commercial success'', and I'm yet to see proof and evidence provided by you that supports your conclusion that they want to make a quick buck then sell the club.If so, they could have walked out with the 75m they gained on Suarez last season. The last two f*ck wits did not do a stellar job, they didn't even improve Liverpool financially, in fact we recorded a loss every year (except in 2008, I think) and our financial risk increased dramatically because of the loan they've taken from RBS to purchase the club. Even our operating revenues at that time did not even achieve a bigger growth than when we are with FSG. Plus, the club couldn't afford to repay the loans back, which caused massive solvency and liquidity issues (EVEN WHEN WE WERE IN THE CL). One data I came up that our loans amounted to 170m in July 2010, 4 months before FSG purchased the club. So your conclusion that the two previous owners running the club did a ''stellar'' job is so flawed you couldn't even bother looking at the numbers back then and see that how much of a financial risk we were operating on
. The agenda of any modern day owner is to maximize his/her returns, in order to do so with Liverpool FC is by challenging for honors and being very successful on the pitch (i.e winning trophies), so if you think that FSG are just looking to get to 4th place every single year or stay in the top 4 then think again, it doesn't make any sense if you buy a top club like Liverpool. Stolen from another Liverpool forum
Lovren and Markovic were both "moneyball" players whether you want to accept this or not. One was bought on the back of having a great season with Southampton which I'm sure would have yielded a s**tload of statistical data on the premise to buy him. The other is a player that if he kicks on the owners stand to make a tidy profit selling him on in a few seasons time all due to his age. Otherwise the loss will be minimal as we can still sell him at a decent price tag.
No they are not moneyball players, moneyball is ''operations in which a team endeavors to analyze the market for players and buy what is undervalued and sell what is overvalued''. Lovren does not fit the spectrum of moneyball, nor does Balotelli, nor does the signing of Adam Lallana, who we bought them over their value (Lovren was bought 7m by Southampton). So when adam Lallana gets to the age of 29 and we decide to cash in we will make a minimal loss? What also contradicts your argument about FSG's role of having cheap statistical players by giving them low wages is that with FSG our wage bill has DOUBLED since 2007.
They even offered the SAME amount of wage structure to Sanchez and yet he opted for Arsenal, so are you going to blame FSG for that?
20m is nothing to sneeze at, but in this day and age it's nothing compared to what the richest clubs in Europe are paying for top, top players. My argument all along has been that we have been selling players like Suarez for 63m (or 70m depending on who you believe), Torres for 50m, Alonso for 30m and never replacing them with quality players that WOULD COST THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY. Our biggest spend in our entire history has been for a 35m pony-tailed dud. And yet there is this delusion that we will compete with these sides, where this mentality comes from I don't understand?
How is it FSG's fault if the committee and Rodgers can't do the job properly by scouting the right players? paying 20m on the RIGHT players? The only blame here on FSG is that they recruited the WRONG people, if there was better recruitment team in place then we wouldn't even having this discussion and we wouldn't be in 5th place. FSG spent 135m NET on players so far, that is A LOT of money. Exclude the net spend, we have spent so much money on average players, the owners don't take even 20% of the blame. The Transfer Committee failed big time to acquire the right players, so it's up to the owners to get better ones by screening candidates better.
Rodgers and the transfer committee don't dictate the transfers. Our owners demanding a ROI on our players are what dictates our transfer policy. What drives ROI? Youth. Rodgers and the transfer committee go out with the limited money they are given and then try and get the best players they can. Because promising young players aren't cheap they aren't left with too much to spend so then need to try and get players like Lambert and Toure to fill in the gaps. This is why we have seen so many horrendous acquisitions over the last three years, which is arguably the worst in the club's history. Because of this ROI is driving our strategy, not the actual premise of buying quality and winning trophies.And we will continue to do this unless the owners decide to spend real dollars on top individuals or they decide to sell the club.
If you're a CEO of a company who just hired a manager to work in sales and you give him the directive on how he should improve sales, but the manager in the end does not live up to his/her expectation it's the CEO's fault? 10% yes because he hired the wrong candidate, but 90% is down to the manager for failing on doing his duties. The horrendous acquisitions are down to the people who are in charge of the recruitment policy, NOT the board of directors. Lallana, Balotelli & Lovren are not cheap, they are pretty expensive and we paid top dollar to buy the 3 of them, but they are also not youth and are actually in their maturity age, so you can't assume that the ROI on our players dictate the transfer policy, because we have 3 signings that contradicts this assumption. Ok let's say FSG are forcing the committee to buy young players, so why did they buy the likes of Ilori, Moreno, Markovic, Alberto, etc... for a lot of money when these youth are NOT EVEN GOOD ENOUGH OR EVEN HAVE ANY SORT OF POTENTIAL? The policy is good, the recruitment is not.
That's the reason we have imploded as a club this season, you can blame our inept and inexperienced manager all you want, but the underlying reason why we have bought so much dross in and are underperforming is because of our deluded owners wanting to make money over winning trophies. I mean you even summarised it so neatly when you said this "Can you dispute the clear cut FACTS that off the field we have recorded a profit since 2007, our revenues grew since 2011" not realising what this actually means from a football point of view.
The reason we imploded this season is because of our incompetent scouts and decision making in buying the wrong players, hell we wanted a Goalkeeper yet the recruitment team decided not to get another GK, we also wanted a Suarez type of player, yet we got Balotelli. I bet it's FSG's fault for not pinpointing our weaknesses and forced the Balotelli purchase.
Just like when I used the words "stellar" to imply that the previous owners ROYALLY F**KED US OVER and didn’t really do a stellar job. So your rant about our previous owners and comparing them to the current lot makes little sense at all.
